Innovative Bites Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 31 March 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 500 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether "Mega Marshmallows" are "sweetened prepared food which is normally eaten with the fingers" for the purposes of VAT Note 5. The First-tier Tribunal held that "normally" means more often than not (>50%) and that eating a roasted marshmallow as part of a s'more is not eating the marshmallow with the fingers. On the evidence the non-finger methods were more frequent, so the product is not normally eaten with the fingers and the appellant's appeal was allowed.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The tribunal treated "normally eaten with the fingers" as a binary, fact-based test requiring that the product be eaten with the fingers more than 50% of the time. It also held that a component consumed as part of another item (for example a marshmallow eaten via the biscuits in a s'more) is not properly described as being eaten with the fingers.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment observed that determining "normally" is a multi‑factorial practical question rather than one needing elaborate legal analysis, and that resort to shifting the burden of proof is exceptional and only appropriate if the tribunal cannot rationally resolve the factual issue after proper effort.